We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Perhaps it's because the two Brits speak based upon coherent principles, however unpopular, while Yanks speak in rehearsed sound bites, based upon the latest poll results, however those might trend.
Then again, perhaps it's because the two Brits are just plain smarter.
We tend to elect idiots. When we do elect intelligent people (Bobby Jindal, Thaddeus McCotter, Rand Paul, and my own Rep. Scott Garrett) the media makes a point of ignoring them or tries desperately to portray them as morons. They are also considered too boring and not sexy enough for the big jobs.
How come? Because nearly every American politician has gone to law school for dummies whereas neither British politician you cited came even close to studying the law. It's not that they are British; it's that they are not lawyers.
Part of it's structural. Can't speak to Europe per se, but the legislative procedure of England's Parliament tends to encourages that kind of oratory in those who can pull it off - but not nearly most of your average PMs can.
Such talent is not often well rewarded in either chamber of Congress, especially not in the Senate. Part of that's the modern rules of both houses, part of it's the reality of modern U.S. politics in a very large county.
Members of neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate spend a great deal of time on the floor of their respective chambers listening to other members speak or responding to what's been spoken. They tend to visit the floor only for votes and for debates on matters of particular interest to them or their districts.
Further, individual members of Congress have much more leeway in diverging from the Party Line than individual British Parliamentarians; the British Tory and Labour "Whips" have much more power to enforce conformity than their U.S. counterparts.
Consequently, and I am speculating here, it may be that a lowly backbencher MP might not have much to do but sit around in the Chamber and, possibly, use a gift for oratory (if he's got it) to advance his career.
Finally, in Congress, by and large you can't lay into your fellow Members with quite the verve and candor of Farage. The rules of decorum certainly don't encourage it. Not like in the old days!! (see Preston Brooks).
Also, I'm not sure Farage would get away with some of what he says back home in Parliament. He consistently excoriates the Belgian Von Rompuy, EU "President", in terms that might get him censored back home; but I'm not sure about that, for all I know he's holding back. Von Rompuy certainly deserves even worse treatment than Farage lays on!!
Finally, I wouldn't bet that a bunch of gifted orators would be any better politicians; any less venal, power-grubbing, destructive. Britain's gotten itself into pretty dire straits despite a high proportion of brilliant speakers.